Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 11:48AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

PMCs usually recruit from the military not from 18 year olds with a sense of adventure.

Doesn't require a huge leap to imagine that as this practice grows that they will have to begin training recruits.

What if they started to recruit from the Irish Defence Forces, maybe they do already, any of our expert or semi expert dabblers know?

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 11:51AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Doesn't require a huge leap to imagine that as this practice grows that they will have to begin training recruits.

I cant even see a need for them to do that. Plenty of already trained ex-military looking for work.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What if they started to recruit from the Irish Defence Forces, maybe they do already, any of our expert or semi expert dabblers know?

Of course they already do. why wouldnt they recruit well trained soldiers from ireland?

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 11:55AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I cant even see a need for them to do that. Plenty of already trained ex-military looking for work.

Of course they already do. why wouldnt they recruit well trained soldiers from ireland?

Have you data on that? How many?

Do you think going to fight for 'private armies' is a good career move?

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 11:58AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have you data on that? How many?

Do you think going to fight for 'private armies' is a good career move?

No i dont have any data on it. Only anecdotes.

why use the phrase 'private armies'? unless of course you know it is a loaded phrase. why do you have to discuss in that manner?

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 12:01PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No i dont have any data on it. Only anecdotes.

why use the phrase 'private armies'? unless of course you know it is a loaded phrase. why do you have to discuss in that manner?

Eh? Is that not the service they offer, 'Private Military and Service Companies'?

I personally think it a very scary thing. If Shell deployed one of these companies in Mayo? Would you be concerned?

Jawgap · 23-01-2017 12:03PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Doesn't require a huge leap to imagine that as this practice grows that they will have to begin training recruits.

What if they started to recruit from the Irish Defence Forces, maybe they do already, any of our expert or semi expert dabblers know?

They do already.

Ex-ARW usually qualify for the top echelon of operators for PMCs, other ex-DF for lower echelon or technical roles.

So what? They've acquired marketable skills why shouldn't they go market them.

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 12:06PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Eh? Is that not the service they offer, 'Private Military and Service Companies'?

I dont see the word 'Army' in there. Again, you just make things up because you think it makes some point.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I personally think it a very scary thing. If Shell deployed one of these companies in Mayo? Would you be concerned?

I'm sure they already do have security employed. the same as any other company. why would that concern me?

Jawgap · 23-01-2017 12:08PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have you data on that? How many?

Do you think going to fight for 'private armies' is a good career move?

It was discussed in the Dail and there's some data in the US Defense Census.

.....and PMCs aren't 'private armies' - they provide security.

You need to move on from thinking of them all as Blackwater

Jawgap · 23-01-2017 12:12PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont see the word 'Army' in there. Again, you just make things up because you think it makes some point.

I'm sure they already do have security employed. the same as any other company. why would that concern me?

It seems to be the style of a certain class of poster to take some emotionally loaded words and throw them about without any regard to their proper meaning or context.

#alternativefacts

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 12:22PM

Seems to me if you read reports on the activities of these companies that they are being used in the roles otherwise taken by armies.

More than half of the members of the Security Association for the Maritime Industry (SAMI) are British. Protection Vessels International Ltd, a UK company, describes itself as the “global leader in armed maritime security”. It was set up in 2008 by senior former military figures “with the express purpose of applying military standards of security”, with a team “drawn from the highest echelons of UK Royal Marines, UK government intelligence and commerce”, War on Want notes.

But if certain posters have a problem with me using the term 'private armies' I will desist.
Again the use of a common English word seems to be controversial. Even if used with a lower case 'a'.

ar·my (är′mē)
n. pl. ar·mies
1.
a. A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare.
b. often Army The entire military land forces of a country.
c. A tactical and administrative military unit consisting of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary forces.
2. A large group of people or things, especially when organized for a specific cause or purpose:

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 12:24PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seems to me if you read reports on the activities of these companies that they are being used in the roles otherwise taken by armies.

But if certain posters have a problem with me using the term 'private armies' I will desist.
Again the use of a common English word seems to be controversial. Even if used with a lower case 'a'.

You should stop using the word because it is incorrect.

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 12:26PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You should stop using the word because it is incorrect.

'army' - doesn't describe a group of people organised and trained for land warfare?

Okay. :eek:

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 12:28PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'army' - doesn't describe a group of people organised and trained for land warfare?

Okay. :eek:

I didnt realise that people engaged in protecting shipping were involved in 'land warfare'. Or even people engaged in protecting an installation were engaged in 'land warfare'.

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 12:30PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I didnt realise that people engaged in protecting shipping were involved in 'land warfare'. Or even people engaged in protecting an installation were engaged in 'land warfare'.

It is clear that these private companies have been involved in that.

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 12:42PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is clear that these private companies have been involved in that.

"It is clear". Theresa May uses that phrase a lot as well. take from that what you will.

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 12:45PM

Hard to believe we have been diverted into pedantry again on a conversational forum over the use of a common word like 'army'.

Hard to fathom, why. But then again, maybe it isn't.

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 12:48PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hard to believe we have been diverted into pedantry again on a conversational forum over the use of a common word like 'army'.
Hard to fathom, why. But then again, maybe it isn't.

Perhaps it might be a reminder to you to stop using loaded phrases and stick to the facts.

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 12:49PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Perhaps it might be a reminder to you to stop using loaded phrases and stick to the facts.

A common word is now 'loaded'?
Do tell us, what it is 'loaded' with?

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 12:50PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A common word is now 'loaded'?
Do tell us, what it is 'loaded' with?

and you are complaining about being diverted by pedantry?

Jawgap · 23-01-2017 12:53PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'army' - doesn't describe a group of people organised and trained for land warfare?

Okay. :eek:

No it doesn't.

It's much more than that - but you know that, because we've already had the discussion on the Hague Conventions and yet you persist in using silly little definitions from dictionaries doubtless intended for Junior Cert students.

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 12:54PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and you are complaining about being diverted by pedantry?

Jawgap wrote: »

No it doesn't.

It's much more than that - but you know that, because we've already had the discussion on the Hague Conventions and yet you persist in using silly little definitions from dictionaries doubtless intended for Junior Cert students.

Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

Jawgap · 23-01-2017 01:00PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

it is....

....I mean I gave you enough information on the Hague Conventions previously to go see what the definition of an army is, and yet you persist with the Free Dictionary......

.....of course, conceding what the rest of world agrees is an army means acknowledging that one group of armed thugs you've cheerleaded for isn't actually an army

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 01:08PM

If you want to distinguish a word that has an acceptable and perfectly legitimate meaning in the English language, with a subsequent definition, (i.e. that placed on it by The Hague ConventionS as recently as a few decades ago) by all means, go right ahead. That ONUS is on you.

The rest of us are quite entitled to use ordinary English. Such as 'mercenary' and 'army' as descriptive terms. If I want to qualify the Hague ConventionS use I will do so.

End of. So back to where we were before YET ANOTHER pedantic 'jollie' (I have no idea as to how the Hague ConventionS might qualify 'Jollies', maybe our experts can tell us)

Would people have any objections/offer advice if Irish youths began joining these organisations?
Seems to me that they offer everything people say those specific 'foreign armies' offer. Those ' foreign armies' that are used in an offensive, aggressive force that ignores the sovereignty of other nations because of their necessities, whatever they might be.

From a foreign soldiers point of view what is difference between joining say, the British Army or American army?
These PMC's offer, financial gain, training, 'jollies' 'big boys toys' etc.

All signs seem to be that this activity will only grow. Which is scary in itself.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pri...ies-pmsc/21826

Jawgap · 23-01-2017 01:28PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you want to distinguish a word that has an acceptable and perfectly legitimate meaning in the English language, with a subsequent definition, (i.e. that placed on it by The Hague ConventionS as recently as a few decades ago) by all means, go right ahead. That ONUS is on you.

The rest of us are quite entitled to use ordinary English. Such as 'mercenary' and 'army' as descriptive terms. If I want to qualify the Hague ConventionS use I will do so.

End of. So back to where we were before YET ANOTHER pedantic 'jollie' (I have no idea of how the Hague ConventionS might qualify 'Jollies', maybe our experts can tell us)

Would people have any objections/offer advice if Irish youths began joining these organisations?
Seems to me that they offer everything people say those specific 'foreign armies' offer. Those ' foreign armies' that are used in an offensive, aggressive force that ignores the sovereignty of other nations because of their necessities, whatever they might be.

From a foreign soldiers point of view what is difference between joining say, the British Army or American army?
These PMC's offer, financial gain, training, 'jollies' 'big boys toys' etc.

All signs seem to be that this activity will only grow. Which is scary in itself.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pri...ies-pmsc/21826

completely hypothetical......

......as has been explained to you, PMCs don't take on or in raw recruits they want experienced personnel.

......and yes, your expertise as amply displayed on this thread, leads me to conclude that you are right that "All signs seem to be that this activity will only grow".......even though the research shows otherwise, and the tendency now is not to intervene with boots

....personally, if it was me, I'd be staking my money on the growth of militarisation of the police......but sure what would I know.

.....and if you are going to come up with some nonsense about Trump forget it - the Republicans believe in a large military, but they also believe it shouldn't be sent anywhere.

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 01:29PM

Jawgap wrote: »

completely hypothetical......

......as has been explained to you, PMCs don't take on or in raw recruits they want experienced personnel.

......and yes, your expertise as amply displayed on this thread, leads me to conclude that you are right that "All signs seem to be that this activity will only grow".......even though the research shows otherwise, and the tendency now is not to intervene with boots

....personally, if it was me, I'd be staking my money on the growth of militarisation of the police......but sure what would I know.

.....and if you are going to come up with some nonsense about Trump forget it - the Republicans believe in a large military, but they also believe it shouldn't be sent anywhere.

Can you link to this?

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 01:35PM

Jawgap wrote: »

completely hypothetical......

......as has been explained to you, PMCs don't take on or in raw recruits they want experienced personnel.

......and yes, your expertise as amply displayed on this thread, leads me to conclude that you are right that "All signs seem to be that this activity will only grow".......even though the research shows otherwise, and the tendency now is not to intervene with boots

....personally, if it was me, I'd be staking my money on the growth of militarisation of the police......but sure what would I know.

.....and if you are going to come up with some nonsense about Trump forget it - the Republicans believe in a large military, but they also believe it shouldn't be sent anywhere.

Given the source I don't see the point in responding at all. I wouldn't describe global research as a neutral observer. Let's just say they are a little biased.

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 01:38PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Given the source I don't see the point in responding at all. I wouldn't describe global research as a neutral observer. Let's just say they are a little biased.

What in your opinion would be an 'unbiased' source?

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 01:40PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What in your opinion would be an 'unbiased' source?

dont try and deflect. you quoted a source. do you think that source is unbiased and neutral?

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 01:42PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

dont try and deflect. you quoted a source. do you think that source is unbiased and neutral?

I have no idea if it is or not, currently looking for the research Jawgap quoted.

Would be much handier if you guys just linked to these unbiased opinions and research you mention. No?

If it exists, why hide it?

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 01:46PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no idea if it is or not, currently looking for the research Jawgap quoted.

Would be much handier if you guys just linked to these unbiased opinions and research you mention. No?

If it exists, why hide it?

so you are happy to quote from any site that suits your agenda without doing any due diligence as to the veracity of the site? Were the poor english skills in the article not a clue?

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments